baker river hydroelectric project - puget...

Puget Sound Energy Semi-Annual Progress Report to FERCBaker River Project (FERC No. 2150) 1 July 2002 to January 2003

BAKER RIVER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTFERC Project No. 2150

Semi-Annual Progress Report to FERCFor the Period July 2002 to January 2003

SUMMARY

This report highlights the progress of the relicensing process for Puget Sound Energy’s(“PSE”) Baker River Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2150) for the period from July2002 to January 2003. During this period, the Baker Solution Team, five resourceworking groups, and two ongoing technical working groups have met regularly. Regularparticipants in these meetings have included representatives from PSE, state and federalagencies, local governments, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations and thepublic. One tour of the project was conducted in October, attended by several publicofficials and other interested parties from Whatcom County.

In addition to their regular focus on resource issues and studies, the working groups alsobegan preliminary work on the settlement process, with an emphasis on delineation ofprotection, mitigation and enhancement measures (collectively referred to as “PMEs”) tobe included in the settlement agreement. In September, PSE selected a contractor toprepare the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment, and initial work began on thisdocument. In October, PSE held two meetings with FERC, agencies and other licensingparticipants to discuss the various regulatory processes affecting relicensing, both stateand federal, and to delineate how these processes integrate with the relicensing process.

During this period, comment letters were received from agencies and other parties onPSE’s Initial Consultation Document (intended to serve as the “Initial InformationPackage” under the Alternative Licensing Procedures [“ALP”]) and Scoping Document I,both issued in April 2002. In response to these activities, PSE has prepared a schedulethat is more detailed than the schedule submitted in April 2002 with the request to FERCto use the ALP.

PSE maintains a website for the Baker River relicensing (accessed at www.pse.com) whichcontains general information about the process and the project; meeting schedules,agendas, notes and handouts for the various working groups; study and scheduleinformation; and contact information.

This report is organized into three sections:Section I: Relicensing ActivitiesSection II: Working Group ReportsSection III: Attachments


SECTION I: RELICENSING ACTIVITIES

WORKING GROUP MEETINGS OVERVIEW

The Baker River Project relicensing process has five working groups and two technicalworking groups, most of which have met regularly since they were established. Thefocus of most of the working group meetings from July 2002 through January 2003 wason studies, with some time spent on settlement process activities. All of the meetingsutilized an outside facilitator, PDSA Consulting.

In addition to the meetings noted above, “teamlets” or small groups of representatives ofthe various working groups have met to examine specific topics and report back to thefull working group on their findings.

Summaries of the meetings of each of the working groups for the period from July 2002to January 2003 are included in Section II of this report. Detailed meeting notes andselected handouts from the working groups can be found on the relicensing website(www.pse.com).

BAKER SOLUTION TEAM

General Activities

The Baker Solution Team met six times during the period from July 2002 to January2003. Several activities happened at each meeting. One of these was a conference callwith various FERC representatives assigned in an advisory capacity, including: SteveHocking, Keith Brooks, John Blair, Mike Henry, and Frank Winchell. Topics discussedincluded: the revision of language in PSE’s Communications Protocol regarding studydeferral; the NEPA scoping documents; the FERC representatives chosen to work withthe various resource working groups; planning and follow up for the October regulatorymeetings; elements of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA),especially the alternatives to be examined; flood control provisions; and the FERCproject boundary.

Other regular activities at the Solution Team meetings included reports on the status ofworking group study requests and studies; updates of the schedule for the licensingprocess and for the various resource areas; status reports on activities in the workinggroups; and regular presentations on the HYDROPS model, including discussion ofvalidation, accessibility, and the request process for scenario runs.

Over the six-month period, the Solution Team also revised a process for elevating issuesto the Team from the working groups; received clarification on how the US ForestService views “continuing impacts”; and discussed the action items from the finalCommunications Protocol/Process Document.


Settlement Process

In June, the Solution Team agreed to initiate a process for drafting a SettlementAgreement. Representatives from Agreement Dynamics began meeting with the workinggroups in July with the objectives of: turning the conversation towards PMEs/settlement;ascertaining if, at this stage, there are clear points of agreement and/or significantconflicts; and ascertaining if the right data are being collected and reviewing whenstudies will be complete.

Starting at the July meeting, the settlement process became a regular component ofSolution Team meetings. In July, the Team was given a summary on how introduction ofthe settlement process was received at the Aquatics, Terrestrial and Recreation workinggroups, including working group concerns about the timeline and the added workrequired for crafting PMEs. The Team revised the criteria established for narrowingPME options from the initial list compiled by the working groups. These criteria are: “Isthe PME legal?” and “Does the PME relate to project effects?”

From August through November, the Terrestrial, Recreation and Aquatics workinggroups identified issues for potential PME development and began initial drafting ofpotential PMEs. In December, the Cultural Working Group began the process. TheEconomics Working Group began the process in January 2003. The groups utilized timeat their monthly meetings and additional meetings of teamlets to complete this work.

In August, the Solution Team approved an additional criterion for the initial PME sort:“Is the PME technically feasible?” In September, the Team approved the general stepsfor settlement and PME development and also clarified the roles of the various parties inthe facilitation team in the settlement process.

In October, the Solution Team received the first major status report of the PME draftingprocess, a more detailed schedule for the settlement process and a draft outline of the“Framework for Agreement.” This Framework is an outline for a Settlement Agreementin Principle. The Team reviewed and critiqued this draft, which will be fleshed out withboilerplate settlement language in the next few months.

In November, the Solution Team received a report of the PME topics that each workinggroup had drafted: Terrestrial has identified 14 PMEs, Recreation 8 PMEs and Aquatics20 topics under 5 PMEs. The Team was also given a revised schedule for the process. InDecember, the Team received an update on the process of actually writing out the PMEs.

Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment Process

In August, the Solution Team began the process of selecting a contractor to prepare aPreliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA). From the FERC list of approvedcontractors circulated to participants, PSE invited four firms to submit Statements ofQualification and interviewed three firms. In September, The Louis Berger Group(pairing with Meridian Environmental) was chosen as the PDEA contractor and approved


by the Solution Team. The Solution Team also clarified how the PDEA contractor andthe working groups would interact.

During October and November, representatives of the contractor met with the resourceleads, visited the project, and reviewed all project documents relevant to their discipline.At the October Solution Team meeting, the contractor presented a schedule for thedeliverables for the PDEA. In November, the contractor presented PSE with anassessment of the adequacy of the information for preparing the PDEA and discussed aschedule for preparation of drafts of the PDEA. At the November Solution Teammeeting, the contractor discussed the deadlines for information and the alternatives to beincluded in the draft document, due to be completed by September 30, 2003.

In December, the contractor provided an update of the PDEA process, including progresson drafting an outline of the PDEA that reflects the information that needs to be analyzedin the document.

Regulatory Meetings

In August, the Solution Team decided to organize meetings with FERC, agencies andother licensing participants to discuss the various regulatory processes affectingrelicensing, both state and federal, and to delineate how they integrate with therelicensing process. These two meetings were held to coordinate with visits from FERCrepresentatives Steve Hocking and Mike Henry on October 29, 30 and 31.

The purpose of the October 29 meeting was to determine how to best integrate thefollowing processes into FERC’s relicensing process for the Baker River Project: (1)Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), (2) Section 18 of the FPA, and (3) theEndangered Species Act. At the meeting, the Army Corps of Engineers providedinformation on the federally mandated relationship the Corps has with PSE for providingflood control at Upper Baker. Representatives from the US Forest Service, NationalMarine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service presented information ontheir responsibilities and the schedule for meeting those responsibilities.

The purpose of the October 31 meeting was to determine how to integrate WashingtonState’s Section 401 water quality certification and coastal zone consistency determinationprocesses into the FERC relicensing process for the Baker River Project. Representativesof the Department of Ecology, Skagit County and the Town of Concrete provided inputto the various elements related to these processes, as well as the shoreline permit and theState Environmental Policy Act process. The meeting participants prepared a drafttimeline for integrating the various processes. Representatives of Whatcom County didnot attend the meeting but responded to the draft meeting notes.

A flow chart representing the integration of these federal and state processes with theBaker relicensing process is included in Section III of this report.


DOCUMENT STATUS

Initial Consultation Document Comments

PSE received six letters of comment on the Initial Consultation Document (“ICD,”intended to serve as the “Initial Information Package” under the ALP), issued in April2002. Comments were received from: National Park Service, Skagit County, theSteelhead Committee of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Bill McMillan, US Forest Serviceand Skagit System Cooperative. The information in the ICD and the comments on thisinformation will be utilized during preparation of the license application and PDEA.

Scoping Document I Comments

FERC and PSE received ten letters of comment on Scoping Document I, issued in April2002. Comments were received from: the Town of Concrete, Skagit County PublicWorks, National Park Service, US Forest Service, Washington Department of Ecology,Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington Department of NaturalResources, Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland, Skagit County, and Skagit SystemCooperative. FERC is assisting in the preparation of Scoping Document II, and whereappropriate, incorporating these comments.

SCHEDULE STATUS

The work accomplished from July 2002 to January 2003 has allowed PSE to refine theschedule submitted in April 2002 with the request to FERC to use the ALP for the Bakerrelicensing. The revised schedule included in Section III of this report provides detailson the various activities and processes in the relicensing, including how they are linked.


SECTION II: WORKING GROUP REPORTS

AQUATIC RESOURCES WORKING GROUP

Six Aquatic Resources Working Group meetings have been held during this six-monthperiod, with attendance by a majority of the participating member organizations. Theworking group has focused on aquatic resource issues and studies of interest to theworking group participants. The working group continued the relicensing studies process,which included preparing study requests, combining related requests, deciding on whatstudies to perform, preparing study plans, conducting studies, and organizing, analyzingand reporting study results.

During this six-month period, progress reports and results have been discussed on 26studies that have been approved, undertaken, are continuing or have been completed froma list of 38 study requests. Six studies are completed. Four requests are new and areundergoing review. A summary of the status of ongoing aquatic studies is included inSection III of this report.

The Baker River HYDROPS model was demonstrated and discussed with the workinggroup in October 2002. The working group is preparing various operational scenariosthey might run through the model to support the work on fish passage alternatives andinstream flow study.

The working group began to develop draft PME measures and have had several teamletmeetings to discuss interests and brainstorm potential measures. The group sortedpotential measures (over 190) into high level PME categories. An outline of potentialPME categories with corresponding detail was presented to the working group as oneexample of how potential measures, issues and interests could be included in a settlementagreement. The group is now focusing on developing first drafts of PMEs consideredmost critical. In the next three to five months, the working group will continue todevelop and revise first draft PMEs while working towards a consensus on which PMEoptions it wants to recommend to the Solution Team.

FISH PASSAGE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

From July through December 2002, five combined upstream and downstream passagefacilities design meetings were held with technical team members, includingrepresentatives from resource agencies, tribes and non-governmental organizations. Inaddition, a selected group of technical representatives toured regional passage facilitiesand reported observations back to the technical committee. The focus over the past sixmonths was to review results of four completed downstream biological studies andhistorical mark-recapture studies for use in downstream alternative selection and tocontinue to narrow fish passage design alternatives.


Twenty-five downstream passage design alternatives have been undergoing a screeningprocess, developed in the technical working group, for selection of the final alternative(s)for further design development. Thus far, the options have been narrowed to twenty.

Eight upstream passage alternatives were identified and underwent the screening processfor selection of the best alternative. Consultation involved reviewing potential upstreampassage options including fishways, tramways, fishlocks and trap-and-haul concepts.After substantial deliberation and evaluation, the technical committee has identified thetrap-and-haul concept as the best alternative to advance and has recommended thisalternative to the Aquatic Resources Working Group. A conceptual design report wasproduced and presented to the working group in January 2003.

A summary of the status of ongoing studies coordinated through the Fish PassageTechnical Working Group is included in Section III of this report.

INSTREAM FLOWS TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP

A technical subcommittee on instream flows was convened in 2002 and met three timesto discuss approaches to take for an instream flow study. In consultation, the teamletcame to an agreement on a study approach. An instream flow study was implemented inAugust 2002 that established 24 transects in the middle Skagit River to collectmeasurements of habitat condition and velocity at mainstem and off-channel habitats.Measurements were completed at low and medium flows. Monthly progress reports weregiven to the Aquatic Resources Working Group. Measurements at high flows will betaken in 2003. The second year of spawner and redd distribution surveys on the middleSkagit River were also conducted and completed and a substantial amount of spawnerdata were collected. Results were presented to the Aquatic Resources Working Group.

WILDLIFE & TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES WORKING GROUP

The Wildlife and Terrestrial Resources Working Group has been meeting monthly towork on the terrestrial issues and studies that are of interest to the working groupparticipants. The working group’s main focus during this six-month period has been tofinish existing studies and prepare study reports, develop plans for and implement anynew studies that are needed, and begin the process of developing a list of PME optionsfor use in the settlement agreement process.

Several studies have been ongoing and/or have been completed within the last year, andemphasis has been placed on processing the data and preparing study reports. Studiesthat are done and are in the report phase are the T2 Project Area Vegetation and T5Wetland studies, T7 Historic Vegetation and T7b Future Vegetation mapping, T11Oregon Spotted Frog study, T13 Terrestrial Mollusk study, T16 Rare Plant study, andT17 Project Area Amphibian study. The Analysis Species (T4) study is ongoing (speciesliterature reviews are being developed), as is the T15 Basin Vegetation mapping. Neitherof these will have final reports, but are meant as data sources for analysis support.


New studies being developed are the T6 Noxious Weed study, T12 Grizzly Bear study,T19 Habitat Assessment study, and T21 Elk Habitat Mapping study. The Noxious Weedstudy plan is near completion, and the study will take place during the summer of 2003.The other study plans are currently being developed, and the work will occur during latewinter/spring of 2003. The T20 Wildlife Use in the Drawdown Zones study did not havecollaborative support within the working group, so PSE has chosen to conduct the studyon their own and share the data with those interested.

In August the working group began to develop draft PME measures, and had severalteamlet meetings to discuss interests and brainstorm potential measures. The groupcompleted the PME matrix worksheets, and by the end of December finalized the firstdraft of PME options. This first draft contains high level PME options and has not been“fleshed out” to include any scope or budget details. In the next three to five months, theworking group will work towards reaching consensus on which PME options it wants torecommend to the Solution Team, and will develop more detailed scope and budgetinformation.

RECREATIONAL & AESTHETIC RESOURCES WORKINGGROUP

Six Recreational & Aesthetic Resources Working Group meetings have been held fromJuly through December of 2002. Of the twenty-five members of the working group,twelve have been active participants during the last six months. The working groupfocused on discussion of recreation and aesthetic issues and studies. In addition to theregularly scheduled monthly meetings, eight teamlet meetings were held to addressspecific topics that were identified by the working group.

During the six-month period, the working group has discussed the status of the six on-going studies where data continue to be collected. Data collected during the 2001 fieldsurvey season for two other studies continue to be analyzed. A summary of the status ofthe recreation and aesthetics studies is included in Section III of this report.

Agencies and interest groups active in the working group developed a list of 90 potentialPME measures to be considered for inclusion in the settlement agreement. A teamlet metand aggregated these 90 options into the following eight PME categories: Safety,dispersed recreation, adaptive management, scenery and aesthetics, trails and trailheads,roads and road access, interpretation and education, and developed facilities. First draftsof these potential PMEs have been produced and are currently under review by theworking group.

CULTURAL & HISTORICAL RESOURCES WORKING GROUP

In the second half of 2002, the Cultural and Historical Resources Working Groupcontinued delineating the Area of Potential Effect (“APE”) to Archaeological Resources.Dr. Frank Winchell (FERC) began participating in the meetings and has helped to clarifyFERC’s view of what the APE process should entail. The working group also finished


work on an Unanticipated Discovery Plan and began familiarizing Baker Projectpersonnel and contractors with this protocol.

Northwest Archaeological Associates (NWAA), a new contractor hired in September,completed inventory and testing of Lake Shannon sites and began surveying the areasabove the drawdown of both reservoirs. NWAA will carry out testing in the above-waterarea of Baker Lake during the anticipated spring 2003 drawdown. Equinox Research andConsulting, which was hired to assist with traditional cultural property (“TCP”) studies,met with representatives of PSE and the Tribes in early December to discuss a proposedapproach. The contractor began attending the working group meetings in January to helpintegrate the TCP study process with working group activities. Historical ResearchAssociates carried out background research and field inventory of historical buildings andstructures and will provide a preliminary report to the working group in March.

In December, the working group discussed general types of project effects (such asrecreational activities and types of project operations and maintenance activities thatentail ground disturbance) and began PMEs related to general impacts on culturalresources. After results of the studies are compiled, the working group anticipates beingable to address more specific concerns.

ECONOMICS & OPERATIONS WORKING GROUP

The Economics and Operations Working Group resumed meeting in April 2002 after ayear during which the efforts of the group focused on development of a hydrologic modelcapable of analyzing the complexity of the two-dam project. At the April meeting,working group members reviewed FERC’s model expectations and the process andselection of Powel’s HYDROPS model to analyze hydrology, operations and economicsof the Baker Project. Also a presentation was made of the model’s function, input andoutput. In June, 22 attendees participated in a hands-on training workshop on theHYDROPS model.

Three meetings of the working group were held in the fall of 2002. The working groupconsidered refinements in HYDROPS, demonstrated remote operation, and formulated arun request form for use by participants. A teamlet was formed to construct hydrologicalbaselines (exceedances of 10%, 50% and 90%). The US Forest Service continued toprovide technical review of the HYDROPS model.

The working group reviewed economics and operations issues and discussed PMEsformulated by the other working groups.

The Army Corps of Engineers made a presentation outlining their flood storage programfor Upper Baker. The working group discussed the approach to analyzing flood control,development of project options, and assumptions around flood control.


SECTION III: ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT 1:Status of Ongoing Aquatic Studies (July – December 2002):

• Reservoir Tributary (Habitat, Biological and Delta Surveys) – Second and final yearfield work completed. Crews surveyed all streams tributary to both reservoirs, aswell as all those tributary to the Upper Baker River. Draft Report combining resultsof Tributary, Biological, Delta Surveys and Results of Tributary Production Potentialto be completed in February 2003.

• Lower Baker River Habitat Mapping – Completed, including biological surveys.Results of habitat and biological surveys to be combined into single report spring2003.

• Reservoir Fish Population Characteristics – A review of existing literature and data isunderway to support development of Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment.

• LB/Skagit R. Flow Coordination, Gaging – Hydrologic analysis, monitoring andobtaining stage discharge measurements at selected sites in the middle Skagit Riverhave been completed and further efforts merged with Skagit River Flow and HabitatAssessment.

• Water Quality Sampling – PSE and DOE collaborated on study plan. Data collectionhas been modified according to study plan and initiated in spring 2002. Historicaldata sampling was reviewed.

• Skagit R. Flow, Ramping & Habitat Assessment – Technical committee developedstudy approach in consultation. Study approach approved in July 2002. Field workbegan early August and continued through December. Twenty-four transects wereestablished and flow measurements are underway. Measurements have beencompleted at low and medium flows. Measurements include habitat condition andvelocity at mainstem transects and off-channel habitats.

• Salmonid Redd Selection and Maintenance – Second year of surveys completed.Results of spring and fall field surveys presented to the working group.

• Distribution, Timing of Salmonid Fry – A study approach is being developed thatwould identify data needs for middle Skagit River and review existing data on theupper and lower Skagit River.

• Reservoir Shoreline Erosion Identification & Location – Field surveys have beencompleted and preliminary results presented in a draft erosion mapping and photo-documentation report to the working group.

• Upper Baker River Delta Scour – Analysis and supplemental surveys completed.Draft report expected February 2003.

• Lower Baker Alluvial Fan/Channelization – Proposed approach has been discussedand development of a study plan is next step.

• Baker River Survey Upstream of 1 Kilometer – Habitat and biological surveyscompleted. Results to be merged with Tributary Surveys draft report expectedFebruary 2003.

• Review Limnological Information – Data have been consolidated by PSE and acontractor selected to provide review and analysis. Report expected spring 2003.


• Large Woody Debris Management – Study and analysis completed. Draft reportexpected in February 2003.

• Hydrologic & Geomorphic Analysis – Study and analysis to be completed early in2003.

• Inventory of Unnatural Predation Opportunity – Study plan has been approved andfield surveys to be initiated in January 2003, focusing on predation at collection andrelease points.

• Production Potential-Tributary – Results will be combined with Reservoir TributaryStudy into single report expected in February 2003.

• Production Potential-Reservoir – Study proposal and contractor have been selectedand review of existing data is underway.

ATTACHMENT 2:Status of Aquatics Studies Coordinated through the Fish Passage TechnicalWorking Group (July – December 2002):

• Near Field Smolt Behavior – Field effort completed, results have been presented anddraft report under review.

• Far Field Smolt Behavior – Field effort completed, results have been presented anddraft report under review.

• Kelt Radio-Telemetry – Field effort completed, results have been presented and draftreport under review.

• Passive Integrated Transponders Tag Migration – Field effort completed, results havebeen presented and draft report under review.

• Downstream Fish Periodicity Correlation Analysis – Analysis and results reported.Study is completed.

• Upstream Fish Run-Timing Correlation Analysis – Analysis and results reported.Study is completed.

ATTACHMENT 3:Status of Ongoing Recreation Studies (July – December 2002):

• R5 – Visual and Aesthetics – Drafted a study plan dealing with the aesthetic impactof the project on the surrounding area. Identified potential viewpoints and obtainedphotographs from these locations. Produced a CD including a map of the Baker Basinwith photograph locations marked, a photograph index and the photographs.

• R9 – Recreation Use Survey, Electronic Monitoring – Continued electronicmonitoring on several roads in the upper basin. Terminated this process in Novemberdue to snow.

• R11 – Recreation Capacity and Suitability Analysis – Work on this study has beensubsumed in R15.

• R12 – Developed and Dispersed Site Inventory – Continued the analysis of the dataobtained through the 2001 field survey season. Produced CDs with preliminary studyresults.


• R13 – Recreation Visitors Use Survey – Continued the analysis of the data obtainedthrough the 2001 field survey season. Distributed to working group an interim reportwith summary documentation.

• R14 – Secondary Data Collection – Work is 90% complete. Much of the data wereobtained in 2001 and used to contribute to R11.

• R15 – Recreation Trail Routing – Convened a teamlet to brainstorm potential trailroutes in the area adjacent the Baker Project. Identified potential new trail sites,focusing on linking current developments in the basin and using existing abandonedroadways where possible. Also, convened a teamlet to discuss appropriate resourceconstraint layers to review during further development of potential trail routes.

• R16 – Recreation Needs Analysis – Interviewed service providers in the Baker Basinincluding the Whatcom County Sheriff and campground site staff to identify currentand future unmet needs in the project area. Conducted a public visioning exercise tofurther identify un-served and under-served populations in the basin. Attention wasfocused on special places, attributes, conflicts and potential future developments.


ATTACHMENT 4:Baker Relicense Project – Flow Chart Schedule

Baker Relicence Project - Flow Chart Schedule

General Timeline December-02 March-03 May-03 June-03 September-03 October-03 December-03 January-04

PME Process 1st Draft PMEs 2nd Draft PMEs 3rd Draft PMEsComplete - 12/19/02 Complete - 3/28/03 Complete - 6/30/03

Settlement Agreement (SA) 1st Draft SA 10/28/03

Submit 1st Draft Submit 2nd Draft License Application (LA) LA for Review LA for Public Prepare Final LA by Solution Team Review 1/2/04

5/1/03 9/3/03

Submit 1st Draft Submit 2nd Draft PDEA for Review PDEA for Prepare Final PDEA

Environmental Assessment (EA) by Solution Team Public Review 1/2/045/1/03 9/30/03

FERC Review Request Preliminary Preliminary T & CsT&Cs From Federal Due From FederalAgencies - 10/1/03 Agencies - 12/31/03

USFS Review Develop Preliminary Submit Preliminary4E Conditions 4E Conditions

10/1/03 12/1/03

USFWS/NMFS Review Develop Preliminary File PreliminarySection 18 Section 18

Mandatory Conditions Mandatory Conditions10/1/03 12/1/03

Wa. Dept. of Ecology - CZMA

Wa. Dept. of Ecology - 401 Certification

Local Permits(Whatcom & Skagit Counties, Town of Concrete)

Page 1 of 3


General Timeline

PME Process

Settlement Agreement (SA)

License Application (LA)

Environmental Assessment (EA)

FERC Review

USFS Review

USFWS/NMFS Review




February-04 March-04 April-04 June-04 August-04 October-04 December-04 January-05

Complete Negotiations Submit Final SAFinal SA - 2/27/04 4/30/04

Submit finalLA - 4/30/04

Submit FinalPDEA 4/30/04

Notice of Acceptence Draft T & Cs Issue Draft EA Issue Final EAPDEA/LA/SA and Due From Federal Public Review 1/14/05

Request Final T&Cs Agencies - 8/30/04 10/15/04From Agencies

6/30/04

Files Draft 4E Conditions with

Schedule for final 8/15/04

Files Draft Sect. 18 File Section 18 Mandatory Conditions Mandatory Conditions &

with Schedule start Formal ESA Process for final 12/1/048/15/04

Receive CZMA Certificateof Consistancy

1/4/05

Water Quality Application for 401 Studies Submitted Certification Received

3/1/04 4/1/04

Applications ReceivedShorelines, JARPA

12/1/04

Page 2 of 3


General Timeline

PME Process

Settlement Agreement (SA)

License Application (LA)

Environmental Assessment (EA)

FERC Review

USFS Review

USFWS/NMFS Review




February-05 April-05 June-05 July-05 September-05 January-06

Final T & Cs Due Develop License Issue Project From Federal Agencies Conditions License - 1/30/06

4/29/05 9/29/05

File Final 4E Conditions Issue Special Use& Submit Special Use Permit & File 7A

Permit For Public Review Conditions - 9/30/054/15/05

Complete Formal ESAConsultation Process& Issue Bio Opinions

2/28/05

CZMA Consistancy Review Complete

7/29/05

Issue 401 Certification

4/1/05

Issue Notice of SEPA Process Issue Local PermitsDevelopment & Public Review Shorelines, SDP

2/15/05 Complete 6/30/054/29/05

Page 3 of 3


ATTACHMENT 5:Puget Sound Energy – Baker Relicense Schedule

ActID

ActivityDescription

OrigDur

RemDur

EarlyStart

EarlyFinish

TotalFloat % 2002 2003 2004 2005 20

PR - ProgramP01 - License Preparation (PSE)0016 Develop ICD 10 0 04MAR02 A 15MAR02 A 1000080 Aquatics Studies 400 216 05MAR02 A 30SEP03 147d 460082 Terrestrial Studies 400 258 05MAR02 A 01DEC03 105d 360084 Cultural Studies 400 258 05MAR02 A 01DEC03 105d 360086 Recreation Studies 400 258 05MAR02 A 01DEC03 105d 360088 Fish Passage Studies 400 258 05MAR02 A 01DEC03 105d 360090 Economics/Operations Studies 400 258 05MAR02 A 01DEC03 105d 360017 Issue ICD 0 0 02APR02 A 1000032 FERC review ICD 77 0 03APR02 A 19JUL02 A 1000033 Agency/Public Comments on ICD 77 0 03APR02 A 19JUL02 A 1000005 File Request to Use ALP 0 0 17MAY02 A 1000015 FERC Approve/Deny ALP Request 30 0 20MAY02 A 19JUL02 A 1000019 Prepare 1st Draft License Application 123 111 04NOV02 A 01MAY03 0 100020 Issue 1st Draft License Appl for Comment 0 0 01MAY03 0 00030 Comment Period - 1st Draft Lic App 21 21 02MAY03 02JUN03 1d 00040 Comments Due - 1st Draft Lic Appl 0 0 02JUN03 1d 00035 Prepare 2nd Draft License Application 84 84 03JUN03 30SEP03 1d 00037 Issue 2nd Draft Lic Appl for Comment 0 0 30SEP03 1d 00039 Comment Period - 2nd Draft Lic Appl 63 63 01OCT03 31DEC03 5d 00041 Comments Due - 2nd Draft Lic Appl 0 0 31DEC03 5d 00050 Prepare Final License Application 79 79 02JAN04 23APR04 5d 00070 Submit Final License Application 0 0 30APR04 * 0 0

P02 - FERC 6 Month Progress Report0071 Prepare 6 Month Progress Report for FERC 47 39 08NOV02 A 17JAN03 73d 180072 Issue 6 Month Progress Report to FERC 0 0 17JAN03 73d 00073 Prepare 6 Month Progress Report for FERC 48 48 09MAY03 17JUL03 73d 00074 Issue 6 Month Progress Report to FERC 0 0 17JUL03 73d 00075 Prepare 6 Month Progress Report for FERC 46 46 10NOV03 16JAN04 73d 00076 Issue 6 Month Progress Report to FERC 0 0 16JAN04 73d 0

P03 - Protection, Mitigation, Enhancement (PME)0078 Prepare Framework for Settlement 60 0 01AUG02 A 30OCT02 A 1000092 Produce PMEs & Agreement in Principle 97 84 01NOV02 A 25MAR03 45d 130062 Revise PMEs 112 112 26MAR03 02SEP03 45d 0

Start date 22FEB02Finish date 30JAN06Data date 20NOV02Run date 16JAN03Page number 1A

© Primavera Systems, Inc.

Puget Sound EnergyBaker Relicense

Early barProgress barCritical barSummary barProgress pointCritical pointSummary pointStart milestone pointFinish milestone poin

ActID

ActivityDescription

OrigDur

RemDur

EarlyStart

EarlyFinish

TotalFloat % 2002 2003 2004 2005 20

0094 Produce Draft Settlement Agreement 40 40 03SEP03 28OCT03 45d 00096 Negotiate Final Settlement Agreement 82 82 29OCT03 27FEB04 45d 0

P04 - Environmental Assessment (EA)0022 Develop NEPA Scoping Document 1 30 0 04MAR02 A 12APR02 A 1000018 FERC Advertises NEPA SD1 Meeting 21 0 03APR02 A 01MAY02 A 1000023 Issue NEPA Scoping Document 1 for Public Rvw 0 0 19APR02 A 1000024 Comment Period - NEPA Scoping Doc 1 64 0 22APR02 A 19JUL02 A 1000025 Comment Meeting for NEPA Scoping Doc 1 2 0 21MAY02 A 22MAY02 A 1000034 Develop NEPA Scoping Document 2 84 0 22JUL02 A 15NOV02 A 1000028 EA Contractor Hired (Louis-Berger) 10 0 16SEP02 A 27SEP02 A 1000021 Prepare 1st Draft PDEA 123 111 04NOV02 A 01MAY03 0 100036 Finalize NEPA Scoping Document 2 27 27 18NOV02 A 31DEC02 0 00027 Issue 1st Draft PDEA for Comment 0 0 01MAY03 0 00029 Comment Period - 1st Draft PDEA 21 21 02MAY03 02JUN03 0 00031 Comments Due - 1st Draft PDEA 0 0 02JUN03 0 00043 Prepare 2nd Draft PDEA 84 84 03JUN03 30SEP03 1d 00045 Issue 2nd Draft PDEA for Comment 0 0 30SEP03 1d 00047 Comment Period - 2nd Draft PDEA 63 63 01OCT03 31DEC03 5d 00049 Comments Due - 2nd Draft PDEA 0 0 31DEC03 5d 00051 Prepare Final PDEA 79 79 02JAN04 23APR04 5d 00055 Submit Final PDEA 0 0 30APR04 * 0 0

P05 - Department of Ecology Permits0148 PSE - Complete Water Quality Studies 40 40 02JAN04 * 01MAR04 -273d 00158 PSE - Apply for 401 Certification 23 23 02MAR04 01APR04 -273d 00098 DOE - Receive 401 Certification Application 42 42 02APR04 01JUN04 -273d 00118 DOE - 401 Certification (1yr Clock Starts) 252 252 02JUN04 01JUN05 -273d 00178 PSE-File Cert. of Consistency - Start CZMA Clock 145 145 04JAN05 * 29JUL05 -314d 00128 DOE - CZMA Consistency Review Complete 0 0 29JUL05 -314d 0

P06 - County Permits0060 PSE - Submit Local Permits (Shorelines & JARPA) 21 21 01NOV04 * 01DEC04 -286d 00046 County - Letter of Completeness Issued 30 30 02DEC04 14JAN05 -286d 00048 County - Notice of Development 0 0 14JAN05 -286d 00052 County - Notice of Dev. (Public Notice Process) 21 21 18JAN05 15FEB05 -286d 00122 County - SEPA Process Complete 0 0 15FEB05 -286d 00142 County - SEPA (Public Hearing) 44 44 01MAR05 * 29APR05 -294d 0





ActID

ActivityDescription

OrigDur

RemDur

EarlyStart

EarlyFinish

TotalFloat % 2002 2003 2004 2005 20

0152 County - Decision by Hearing Examiner 0 0 29APR05 -294d 00172 County - Local Permits (Shorelines, etc) Issued 0 0 30JUN05 -294d 0

P07 - Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation0026 Develop Interim Protection Plan (IPP) 21 0 31MAY02 A 28JUN02 A 1000064 Develop Draft Biological Assessment (BA) 31 0 01JUL02 A 13AUG02 A 1000102 Develop Final BA 10 0 14AUG02 A 27AUG02 A 1000104 Agencies Review BA / Dev BO 42 25 28AUG02 A 27DEC02 338d 41

P08 - Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act0130 Draft Cultural Resources Mgmt Plan (CRMP) 103 103 30SEP03 * 27FEB04 24d 00162 Draft Historic Resource Managment Plan (HRMP) 103 103 30SEP03 * 27FEB04 24d 00134 Draft CRMP Due 0 0 27FEB04 24d 00137 Final CRMP 21 21 01MAR04 29MAR04 24d 00164 Final HRMP 21 21 01MAR04 29MAR04 24d 00132 Develop Programmatic Agreement 21 21 03MAR04 * 31MAR04 22d 00138 Final CRMP Due 0 0 29MAR04 24d 00166 Final HRMP Due 0 0 29MAR04 24d 0

P09 - FERC License Application Review0176 Request Preliminary T&Cs From Fed Agencies 0 0 01OCT03 * 147d 00186 Preliminary T&Cs Due 0 0 01DEC03 * 106d 00196 FERC Review of PDEA/LA/SA 42 42 01APR04 * 28MAY04 -20d 00206 Issue Tendering Notice 0 0 28MAY04 -20d 00226 Interv. Req. & Req. for Final T&Cs from Fed Ag 0 0 30JUN04 * -41d 00216 Issue Notice of Acceptance of PDEA/LA/SA 0 0 30JUN04 * -42d 00246 Draft T&Cs Due From Federal Agencies 0 0 30AUG04 * -105d 00276 Issue Draft EA 0 0 15OCT04 * -138d 00286 Public Review of Draft EA 21 21 01NOV04 * 01DEC04 -148d 00296 Issue Final EA 0 0 14JAN05 * -178d 00266 Final T&Cs Due 0 0 29APR05 * -251d 00306 Develop License Conditions 83 83 29SEP05 * 30JAN06 -439d 00316 Issue Project License 0 0 30JAN06 -439d 0

P10 - USFS License Application Review0326 Develop Preliminary 4E Conditions 42 42 01OCT03 * 01DEC03 105d 00336 File Draft 4E Cond. with Sched for Final Cond. 44 44 01JUN04 * 02AUG04 -64d 00346 File Draft 4E Cond. & Issue Special Use Permit 126 126 01APR05 * 28SEP05 -439d 00356 Public Review & Appeal Process 126 126 01APR05 28SEP05 -439d 0





ActID

ActivityDescription

OrigDur

RemDur

EarlyStart

EarlyFinish

TotalFloat % 2002 2003 2004 2005 20

0366 File Final 7A Conditions 0 0 30SEP05 * -358d 0P11 - USFWS/NMFS License Application Review0376 Develop Preliminary Section 18 Mandatory Cond. 42 42 01OCT03 * 01DEC03 105d 00386 File Draft Section 18 Mandatory Conditions 45 45 01JUN04 * 03AUG04 -65d 00406 Public Review Process - Draft Section 18 Presc 45 45 03AUG04 * 05OCT04 -207d 00426 Formal ESA Consultation Process 98 98 06OCT04 28FEB05 -207d 00416 File Final Section 18 Mandatory Conditions 0 0 01DEC04 * -148d 00436 Issue Biological Opinions 0 0 28FEB05 * -207d 0





baker river hydroelectric project - puget...

Documents